255 / 342
GAZETTE
SEPTEMBER 1987
their legal rights and because of
contracting legal business in
other areas, solicitors do not
discourage litigation."
It is essential that all parties
involved in the legal process look
closely at the present legal system
to ensure that it is made more
efficient and less costly to operate
within. The only real point of
debate, in my view, is how
significant the reforms should be to
achieve a more efficient and cost-
effective system which will lead to
lower claims' costs and therefore
premium levels.
Fault versus no-fault liability
The desirability of replacing the
present tort (negligence) system
with a no-fault liability system is an
argument which has been debated
in many jurisdictions over the past
twenty years or so. The O'Connor
Committee of Enquiry into Motor
Insurance looked at this issue in the
early seventies and a majority
recommended against it. The
U.K. Royal Commission on Civil
Liability and Compensation for
Personal Injury also studied this
question and its Report published
in 1978, though somewhat divided
on the issue, recommended the
maintenance of the tort system
coupled with a limited no-fault
scheme providing compensation
similar to that paid to injured
employees under the U.K. In-
dustrial Injuries Scheme. The U.K.
Government never implemented
this recommendation. Other
countries and states both in
America and Canada have
introduced no-fault liability but I
would hasten to add not all of
these Schemes have led to the
expected drop in premiums which
their sponsors had predicted.
It must be stressed at the outset
that the introduction of no-fault
liability, unless it is coupled with a
very significant drop in the levels of
compensation being awarded at
present to injured victims, would
lead to a very significant increase
in the cost of motor and other
forms of liability insurance. Under
a no-fault system of liability all
persons injured in road accidents
would be entitled to claim full
compensation, irrespective of their
own fault. Consequently, plaintiffs,
who currently cannot claim
compensation under the tort
system because they were res-
ponsible for the accident, or
canonly claim partial compensation
due to their own contributory
negligence, would be able, under a
no-fault system, to claim full com-
pensation.
No-fauft liability systems, in as
far as my research has shown,
usually incorporate an agreed
schedule for compensation both in
respect of loss of earnings and
lump sum payments for certain
types of non-pecuniary compen-
sation. As a result, the need to
involve the legal profession in such
a system is significantly reduced,
thereby producing a substantial
saving in legal costs. This I believe
is the position in New Zealand and
I was surprised to read Mr.
Coghlan's statement that lawyers
continued " to play a prominent
part in dealing with claims"
brought under the New Zealand
system.
It should not be overlooked that
in Ireland we already have a limited
form of no-fault compensation
under our social welfare system
and there is every likelihood, if a
more specific no-fault compen-
sation system for road and other
accidents were introduced, that it
may be linked to our present social
welfare system. An interesting
constitutional issue arises in
relation to no-fault compensation.
Would it be possible under our
Constitution to introduce a scheme
restricted to motor and work
accidents or could it be argued that
victims of all accidents, be they at
home, in public places etc., should
be equally entitled under the Con-
stitution to the same system of
compensation? The cost impli-
cations of a general no-fault
scheme for all accidents needs no
emphasis.
The insurance industry does not
feel that such a radical departure
from the present tort system is
necessary in order to contain and
ultimately reduce insurance costs.
We feel that the introduction of
major reform to the present legal
system would lead to a material
reduction in claims costs. We
would also question if a move
away from the tort system is in the
public interest. The present tort
system does create for the
individual an awareness of his
responsibility to his fellow citizens.
The maintenance of the tort
system under which the individual
C O M P A NY
S ECRE T AR I AL
C O N S U L T A NT
PETER H. QUINLAN
MBA, AITA
OFFERS
A
COMPLETE
COMPANY SERVICE
Advice on Corporate Procedures
Drafting of Resolutions and Minutes
Arrangement of Company Meetings
Searches and Updates of
Company Records
Filing Returns and Other Compliance
67 LANSDOWNE ROAD
DUBLIN 4
Tel.: (01) 684245
Irish
Stenographers
Limited
(Director:
Sheila Kavanagh)
Qualified Experienced Stenographers.
Fast, efficient service.
Overnight Transcripts by arrangement
Contact: Secretary,
"Hillcrest", Dargle Valley,
Bray, Co. Wicklow.
Telephone: 01-862184
245